Hi John,
At 08:27 06-06-2012, John Levine wrote:
>I suppose, but can you describe some bugs in an xml2rfc version of a
>document which wouldn't be apparent in the HTML and text translations,
>but would matter?
I have not come across any bugs in the xml2rfc version of a document.
>If you're worried about ABNF, I'd think that xml2rfc would be better
>than most alternatives, since it's straightforward for a tool to find
>all the sections tagged as ABNF, syntax check them, and say "Three
>ABNF sections found, 0 syntax errors" which is considerably better
>than anything's likely to do with a display format.
I am not worried about the ABNF. Julian explained how he was using
xml2rfc and his automated checks to generate an I-D. I like it as it
reduces the amount of work. FWIW, I used .nroff. I then used
xml2rfc as I found it convenient. I found a tool afterwards which
made .nroff convenient. I don't have a strong opinion about which of
the two is better.
I suggested xml2rfc to a person who wrote her first
Internet-Draft. I had to convert her I-D to .xml for her to
understand what I was suggesting. I am interested in what would make
it easier for that person.
I ticked the "canonical version" checkbox because that's how things
were for the last 20 years or so. It would have been helped if the
RFC Series Editor had an explanation about that and other stuff which
the RFC Editor considers as important for the RFC Series. If the
answer is that it is being done for legal reasons, I'll read it as
the plausible explanation the person could come up with. If I had a
strong opinion, I would have asked for some numbers to back that explanation.
Regards,
-sm